Agency for Persons with Disabilities has stay denied; appeal still pending

In the ongoing saga of what to do with 97-year-old murder suspect Amanda Stevenson, where she will go after she leaves jail could be resolved soon — or completely muddled.

On Friday, the 5th District Court of Appeal denied an emergency motion for stay that the state Agency for Persons with Disabilities had filed. However, even with the recent stay denied, Stevenson waits in the county jail.

That’s because APD disagrees with the order that Senior Judge AW Nichols issued two months ago in St. Johns County that places Stevenson under the care of the agency.

APD has no intention of taking Stevenson and has an appeal still pending with the 5th DCA. Only the emergency stay was denied.

As for the formal appeal of Nichols’ order, there will not be any oral arguments in the case, so a decision could come quickly.

“While APD may be correct in its objection to actual placement, that issue will be resolved in the ordinary passage of time, pursuant to the briefing schedule set by the 5th (DCA),” said Stevenson’s attorney, Raymond Warren, in an email to The St. Augustine Record.

Since her arrest on a charge of second-degree murder of her nephew Johnny Rice on Sept. 25, 2011, Stevenson has been subjected to a host of neurological examinations. She was found to be mentally incompetent to stand trial in May 2012, but it has been difficult to decide where to place her.

Stevenson’s most recent examination — by Dr. Nicole Ninesling — resulted in a diagnosis of frontotemporal dementia. Her condition has been declared non-restorable.

Melanie Mowry Etters, communications director for APD, said in an email last month that Stevenson does not meet the criteria for APD services because she has dementia, not a developmental disability.

Even at the December hearing when Nichols agreed to sign the order for Stevenson’s transfer to APD, he described the situation as “confusing.”

But his order — which was written in January — says that Stevenson does meet the criteria for placement with APD “as that agency is the agency tasked by the legislature in Part III of Chapter 916, Fla. Stat., with the responsibility to provide care, services and supervision to mental deficiency set forth in Section 394.479, Article II, subsection (f).”

The 5th DCA will decide whether Nichols made the correction decision in that order. If it upholds the order, Stevenson’s placement should be secure. A ruling in favor of APD will send Warren back to court, where he will ask for some other manner of release for Stevenson. It’s not clear yet what that would be.

In recent court appearances, Warren has argued that Stevenson needs to be placed in an environment where a person of her age and ailment can receive treatment. The county jail is not such a place, a fact upon which both Warren and the state agree.

However, there seem to be few options for placement for an elderly women who suffers from dementia and has been charged with a violent crime.

In arguing against the recent stay, Warren might have sped up the process in determining Stevenson’s future home. But he hasn’t won a new placement yet.

“Judge Nichols ordered APD to prepare a case plan and submit it to the court. Nothing more,” Warren said. “Upon submission of the case plan, a hearing is to be scheduled for the court to determine if the case plan is to be implemented. APD argued in its motion for stay that an emergency existed, stating that it would have to take her into custody.

“I pointed out that APD is only to work on the proposed case plan, pending possible placement, which doesn’t constitute an emergency.”

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.